It's a battle to be seen in the world of advertisers and in the world of business as a serious force.
Our data has been harvested, collected, modeled, and monetized - sometimes sold on as raw data, and sometimes licensed just for advertisers to be able to target us.
What if in a permission-based structure, you could decide if you wanted to provide value to advertisers or to political groups? Or, for instance, share your medical data for cancer research? All those options should be available for an individual to make.
Christ would be a national advertiser today, I am sure, as He was a great advertiser in His own day. He thought of His life as business.
The 'ideal' body is everywhere you look, and we are made to feel like failures by advertisers and corporations who shame us into buying their products.
As you know, in the past several years, month after month, radio has increased its revenues - some of it even coming from Dot-Com advertisers. So, radio is a survivor.
I'd like to feel that an advertiser gets something extra when they advertise with us - a certain humanity that comes from upbeat and positive human interest letters and success stories.
That something extra, I believe, is a certain humanity that comes from upbeat and positive human interest letters and success stories. Advertisers like to be associated with those qualities.
We need to support the media by subscribing to newspapers and magazines and supporting their advertisers to stay in business. And we need to be less greedy and allow journalists to take the time to pull the story together.
'Do not track' probably won't spell doom for online advertisers. But it will put the burden on them to explain to consumers what targeted advertising is and why it's good for them. They'll have to come out of the shadows; they'll have to be honest with people. What a radical concept. I'm all for it.
